Talk:Murder of Bob Chappell

“Overly detailed” Tag

An “overly detailed” tag was added a few months ago. The way in which thr article is said to be overly encumbered was not identified then, and has not been identified since.

My personal view is that the article displays a relatively clear account of controversial legal proceedings. Understanding the reasons for the steps taken in those proceedings, as well as the reasons for controversy (and also notability) demands a detailed account of the factual background and technical aspects of the case.

In the absence of clarification of why the article is overly detailed, I intend to remove the tag after 28 days. TasmanianCrime (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The Exoneration Papers: Sue Neill-Fraser

In 2023 Wilkinson Publishing published a book by Andrew L. Urban titled "The Exoneration Papers" supporting the case that Sue Neill-Fraser was wrongly convicted. 114.77.87.204 (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is just a recent one in a series of books on the case, all (to my knowledge) promoting the view that Neill-Fraser was wrongfully convicted: there is also

• https://www.wilkinsonpublishing.com.au/product/murder-by-the-prosecution/ Murder by the Prosecution (Wilkinson Publishing, Sept. 2018) by Andrew L. Urban
• https://www.amazon.com.au/Death-Derwent-Sue-Neill-fraser%C2%92s-Story/dp/1947534920 Death on the Derwent: Sue Neill-Fraser's Story by Robin Bowles (2019)
• https://www.amazon.com.au/Tasmanian-Devils-Conviction-Neill-Fraser-Prosecution/dp/1922810916 The Exoneration Papers - Sue Neill-Fraser: Murder By The Prosecution Vol. 2 (2023) by Andrew L. Urban
• https://www.hachette.com.au/colin-mclaren/southern-justice Southern Justice by Colin McLaren

I would be happy for these to be incorporated into the article somewhere, perhaps in a new section... Tony 1212 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

General fix up plus question RE Niell-Fraser "supporters" / further possible review of case

Hi, I came to this page to learn more about the case and ended up filling various gaps with missing information as far as I can find it - hoping that the article is now somewhat more complete.

A question remains regarding the case "notoriety"/ divisiveness / pro-sentence, anti-sentence lobbys (the latter group tending to see it as a potential miscarriage of justice as per the Chamberlain and Folbigg cases)... to what extent do we (Wikipedia) document any/all of this, and if so, where in the article (e.g. a new section, Public perception perhaps, maybe also reflected in lead). Early newspaper reports etc. tended to emphasise the fact that the case had polarised opinions, e.g. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-21/sue-neill-fraser-murder-case-divides-hobart-ahead-of-court-date/7950734 from 2016; but maybe some of this has dissipated since then with the various failed appeals etc. On the other hand the Tasmanian Legislative Council is set very shortly (24 March 2026) to debate a motion to "establish a Commission of Inquiry into and report on the correctness of the conviction of Susan Neill-Fraser for the murder of Bob Chappell", see https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2026/02/11/one-of-the-most-dangerous-convictions-to-be-debated-in-tasmanian-legislative-council/ , so the topic would still seem to be alive despite the failure to get action through regular legal process. This article https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2026/02/25/briefings-for-tasmanian-mps-on-debate-re-sue-neill-fraser-inquiry/ claims that "The petition calling for an independent judicial review of her case has been signed by nearly 40,000 people (as at January 2026)."

So how should Wikipedia cover this? Suggestions, please. Tony 1212 (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Use of trial transcript - yes or no?

This article seems odd in that there is zero account of the Neill-Fraser's cross examination (and the statements she made) during her trial; the full, 1590-page transcript of the original trial was at one time made available on the web and can still be located with some effort, but appears to have been taken down from public view. It seems to me that some of it may be pertinent but I am hesitant to go there if others feel that the removal of this transcript from easy public access is justified; in addition I am not qualified to judge what materials are effectively in the public domain (at least for viewing/citing) and what are not. This is my last contribution to this page and discussion and I leave it to others to decide what may be appropriate. Tony 1212 (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)